--- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, Benjamin BAum <hoomerick2@g...> wrote:>> On 1/6/06, lady_caritas
no_reply@yahoogroups.com wrote:> >> > BTW, Basilides was not a Valentinian, but, of course, was considered a
> > "heretic" by Irenaeus who reviled him. Also, were these allusions you> > mention purported to be statements of Basilides? Do you have a reference?> >> > Thanks,> >
> > Cari> >> > >>

> > SHrug..."a phantom sent to earth" a bit like magic floating sperm in the> spirit realm waiting to incarnate....as opposed to God...but then that is a
> split within modern and ancient Gnosticism is it not? magic vs> mystic......(awaits screaming "no" from people here...)> > > > --Ben> >

Say, Ben, again, no one is screaming here.We're just seeking some accurate information and sometimes a glimpse of truth.I find it all interesting, actually.

Ok ...its interesting yes....but I seek to do more than merely study...so I really dont see the point of spending a great deal of energy on somthing you know is piffle.....UNLESS you are just doing it for information....which is ok......but I am not.

>>

First of all, since you view Irenaeus's writings as interesting, let's look at Basilides' Myth According to St. Irenaeus of Lyon in _Against Heresies, Book I_. Chapter 24, Sections 3-7 (Scroll down about ¾ of the following page.):

You may notice that the "father" is not the same as the ruler "Abraxas" (Abrasaks) (chief of the heavens, but nota supreme god) and that it was the unengendered parent (unborn father),
not the ruler, from whom Christ emanated.

>>

Now as far as phantoms et al., may I assume you're referring to a docetic depiction of Christ, in which Jesus only appeared to have a body and was not "waiting to incarnate," ~

no I am referring to this: The Basilideans worshipped a supreme god called Abraxas
(or Abracax) and claimed that Jesus Christ was only a phantom sent to earth by him.

>>

in contrast to an adoptionist portrayal in which Jesus, the man, would be infused with the Christ at some point, such as his baptism?

>>

yes in contrast to this idea....which is again cosmic sperm floating about...."jesus the spirit channeler" .."jesus the medium".....this to me is false.....he's either God or he isnt......I realise this view is too Christian for many Gnostics.....I too had the view of Christ the man who awakend this special cosmic semen in himself. Thats a nice view...its all a bit new age fluffy and "cosmic christ" like.....either God is God...or he isnt....

How literally should we take all this?It's evident that the historicity of a corporeal man, Jesus, didn't seem so important in a docetic rendering.What about the possibility of this as a literary device to further underline the corruptible and incorruptible differentiations in Gnostic mythology?The incorruptible Christ wouldn't be the same as the physical man, Jesus, of the corruptible world.

yes in contrast to this idea....which is again cosmic sperm floating about...."jesus the spirit channeler" .."jesus the medium".....this to me is false.....he's either God or he isnt......I realise this view is too Christian for many Gnostics.....I too had the view of Christ the man who awakend this special cosmic semen in himself. Thats a nice view...its all a bit new age fluffy and "cosmic christ" like.....either God is God...or he isnt....

This means Christ was not God....but merely a lesser being...it almost makes Christ into an Archon! in my mind.....I dont fully agree with Docetism but however I dont cling to the fact that Christ was incarnate...or human...to me that is superflous......BUt....either Christ WAS/IS God or he isnt.......thats my point......thus the cosmic sperm is just as I mentioned....like some special floating archon ready to incarnate or appear on earth..when told to......which is NOT God....

Well I fully beleive the Physical Christ was a reincarnation of the Adam Cadmon....frankly one thing I like about Gnosticism is that it fully embraces the fact that even God can make mistakes!

But then this again is magick vs mysticism......cosmic sperm vs God......

In Christ and Sophia

Ben

>>

Just some thoughts.

>>

Cari

>>

-- By working the soil we cultivate good manners Is to say "please" and "thank you" Especially for the things you never had ... And always say "thank you" Especially for broccoli

Jhonn Balance16 Feb 1962 - 13 Nov 2004

Tsharpmin7@aol.com

hello AA.... maybe these particular Wiccan and New Age teachers you speak of need to develop the capacity to recognize those empty containers (I think of

I'm seeing this in Wiccan/New Age Community. Lots of wannabees they see
Charmed and they look for people in the craft to teach "all that they know"
then they consider themselves to be a High Priest/tess or in even New Age
circles, Reiki Mastership in a weekend, or people calling themselves shaman
after taking a single class just to say they are. I consider them to be "empty
vessels". AA

This makes good sense to me. From what I've seen I think there is a
lot of copying without understanding if what they're copying is even
needed anymore. Its the same with some of the language and the myths
and allegories. If I really want somebody to understand me or learn
something I can teach I would try to make it as plain as I could. But I
think some people like to be mysterious because it makes them feel
special, and I think that just encourages the false self or our vanity. I
feel like that's the wrong direction to go if you are trying to find
something like what the original Gnostics were searching for. I like how
in the Gnostic Gospels the Gnostics wouldn't waste their lives to be
martyrs if they could help it. What a shame and a waste it would have
been if they copied the orthodox Christians who thought that copying
the Jesus myth would automatic get them in heaven. I think the Gnostics
knew God would have to be insane to want something so cruel.

Homer

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.